20141149 Ver 1_Draft UMBI and Plans - Compiled Comments_20160614

SAW -2014-00657 UMBI and Mitigation Plan Comments
Draft LIMBI:
The cover letter states that the financial assurances have been written to allow flexibility
regarding the assurance used, and draft casualty insurance plans are not yet available.
This proposal must be refined and specified for IRT approval.
See comments in "2014-00657 Octabank Draft UMBI — USACE Comments.pdf'
All Mitigation Plans:
• Section 8.1 indicates that access easements will be obtained and page 28 indicates pipes
will be installed for project access. However, the CE document for does not indicate that
easements will be placed on road crossing areas
• Table 15 Stream Credit Release Schedule:
o Year 4 and Year 6 should also propose stream stability monitoring.
o For bankfull release, "... or at least not in violation" should be removed, as
interim measures at time of bankfull release should be met.
• Table 16 Wetland Credit Release Schedule:
o No vegetation monitoring for wetland areas for Monitoring Year 6 is proposed
(see also Section 11.0). Why?
o The bullet "*" referring to Year 5 Monitoring should be changed to the following:
"Hydrologic monitoring may be discontinued after Year 5 if Hydrologic
Performance Standards for years 1 through 5 have been met (Section 11.0)"
Table 17 — should allow 45-60 days for permit processing.
• Section 10.3:
o In the Belt -width Preparation and Grading section the narrative discusses
reapplying stockpiled topsoil to graded areas once grading is complete. In the
event that stockpiled topsoil is not of sufficient quality or quantity to provide a
suitable planting environment for graded areas, what alternative organic matter
amendments are proposed to compensate for low nutrient/high bulk density soils?
o Piped crossings should also be designed to allow aquatic life passage.
• Table 19/Figure 9: the planting list includes Inkberry (Ilex glabra), which is primarily a
Coastal Plain species. Suggest replacing this species with a more Piedmont -appropriate
Marsh treatment wetland species
• Table 20:
o Under Hydrology / (3) Stream Stability: Change "determine" to "document"
o Under Water Quality / (2) Indicators of Stressors: Change "minimized" to
"avoided" or similar term
• Table 21: This table correctly identifies wetland monitoring (for year 6), however this is
not consistent with Table 16. Please check for consistency.
• Section 11:
o Remove the "if specifically required by permit conditions" from the last sentence
in the first paragraph
o A section for Stream performance standards/success should be added. While
Table 20 states "performance standards", it does not specifically state
performance measures related to stream stability.

o NCDWR and the Corps have concerns that the restoration of low scoring
intermittent streams will disconnect these streams from groundwater. A
disconnection with groundwater could result in a channel becoming non -
jurisdictional and no longer viable for mitigation credit.
o All intermittent channels proposed for restoration should document continuous
flow for a minimum of 30 days.
Section 11.1: Bankfull event documentation is proposed as either physical evidence or
staff gauges. Unless otherwise justified by the sponsor and agreed to by the IRT, staff
gauges should be used, and their location noted on the monitoring plans.
Section 11.2.1 (except Orphan Creek):
o Note that we the Corps now uses the "Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0) (USACE 2012)"
o Although partially basing the growing season for using soil temperature/bud burst
is acceptable, several IRT members expressed concern about the February 1 start
date. DWR suggests that the start of the growing season should be no earlier than
March 1. USFWS generally in favor of determining growing season using site
specific data. Further discussion with the IRT is necessary.
o Bud burst is further clarified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0) (USACE 2012). Please use this information to add to your
document to further clarify what counts as bud burst, as well as the type and
number of separate species required to satisfy this requirement.
o Regarding years with atypical climatic conditions and comparisons with reference
sites, do you plan to collect groundwater gauge data on the reference sites? This
would be an appropriate method of comparison as long as the soils, topography,
hydrologic inputs were similar.
o The Corps is not in favor of substituting a jurisdictional determination for success.
Meeting the 3 wetland criteria does not mean it is meeting success, as
compensatory mitigation sites should be high quality wetlands, not marginal.
Section 12.3 (except Orphan Creek): Generally, the Corps does not believe it is
appropriate to allow berms or excavation to meet success criteria in wetlands otherwise
not meeting hydrology Performance Standards.
Section 13.0:
o The sponsor cannot hold the conservation easement. In order to receive the initial
credit release the Sponsor will need to transfer the easement to the CE holder
(NCWHF).
o Please provide a list of long term management activities with the annual cost for
these activities and the method and amount of funding. (the easements indicate a
"$100" fee paid to NCWHF for the easement?)
o Although the plans do not proposed credit for the "marsh SW areas" but if the
outlet structure or any part of these BMPs falls within the mitigation areas, it
seems reasonable that the easement holder be responsible for maintaining these
areas.
o Per the Rule, the mitigation plan must include a long term management plan (not
conceptual) including the activities and funding for Corps review and approval.

Section 15.0:
o The Sponsor must clearly layout the process for the Financial Assurance
documents and provide documentation that the amount is appropriate (cost
accounting for the construction and monitoring) for IRT approval.
o Will there be one document or two? Bond or policy? Will they provide 2
documents — construction and monitoring — or will they use one bond that reduces
on an annual basis?
o The Corps Office of Counsel will review and approve the draft document(s)
o The Sponsor must provide an original of the executed documents prior to
receiving the first credit release.
• Section 15.2: Typically the Corps will not release the construction bond until we receive
the executed monitoring bond.
• Section 15.3: The Corps cannot direct these funds — please remove such statements from
the documents. The Sponsor can name the NCWHF as the party that will receive the
funds and ensure that the work is completed as long as the NCWHF provides a statement
in writing that they are willing to take on this responsibility.
• Labels on figures and drawings should match the JD maps. Wetland
restoration/enhancement areas should be depicted and labeled on all maps/figures.
• Comparing Table 13 to Figure 10, it appears that mitigation credits are proposed for road
crossings. Stations should end at the beginning of a crossing and begin again after the
road crossing. No mitigation credits should be proposed for road crossings. Please update
figures and tables as needed.
• The Assignment of Conservation Easement Document is confusing. Please further
explain to what the $100 dollar amount is referring. Certainly a $100 endowment amount
is insufficient.
Rocky Top MB:
• This plan proposes restoration in the lower half of UT 1 and UT2 and E2 on upper
portion of UT L However, the mitigation plan references restoration, E 1 and E2 in
various sections (2.0, 10.1, 10.4, 11. 1, etc). If E1 approach will be used then they need to
show this in the credit calculations. Otherwise, please remove references to approaches
that are not proposed.
• Table 17 (p. 26): Isn't planting in September too warm? Also, inconsistent with last
paragraph on p. 31, which states planting will occur from December 1 — March 15.
• P. 28 indicates piped channel crossings for access to the site. The location isn't shown on
the maps or easement — is it within the boundaries of the mitigation site? Will these
crossings be used just for access or will these be permanent farm roads? If there are no
channel crossings proposed on this site, please indicate in this section.
• Figure 6: Several wetland restoration and enhancement areas are proposed to occur in
locations that are already vegetated with trees. Will these treed sections be completely
timbered and replanted, or will any beneficial/desirable native species that may already
be established be identified and allowed to remain?
• Figure 10:
o Why aren't smaller areas of wetland restoration proposed to have monitoring
wells?

o One of the wetland enhancement areas includes the entirety of one of the marsh
treatment areas. Is this included in the credit area calculations? Can the marsh
treatment areas be moved outside of the stream buffer/wetland?
o Vegetation monitoring should be proposed within the wetland
restoration/enhancement areas.
o Why isn't vegetation monitoring proposed in the large area of Dry-Mesic Oak
Hickory Forest in southeast portion of the easement?
Orphan Creek MB:
• P. 28 indicates piped channel crossings for access to the site. Please include discussion
of the proposed stream crossings within the boundaries of the site including the purpose
of the crossings (farm roads and/or construction/maintenance access) and the potential
adverse impacts to the restoration project.
• Section 11.1/Figure 10:
o Why install the stream flow gauge in lower section of UT 1 B instead of the upper
section?
o Using more than one (i.e. two or more) indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) per Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 should also be included as a
performance standard in upper section of UT 1B.
Labels on figures and drawings do not match the JD map.
Figure 6B: although moving the piped crossing to the head of UT2 was discussed during
the 12/16/2014 site visit, wetlands were only later determined in that location. Given the
proposed wetland impacts to UT 2, can the proposed crossing location be eliminated in
lieu of access directly from the dirt road to the north or via the proposed crossing of UT 1
to the south? Clearly explain if this crossing cannot be avoided. If a crossing is absolutely
necessary in this location, and it will be outside of the proposed easement, it should be
addressed apart from the mitigation bank process.
Figure 10:
o The stream gauge should be located in the upper section of UT 1B as this section
is likely to be the driest.
o Show monitoring area for more than one (i.e. two or more) OHWM indicators.
o Can marsh treatment areas be moved at least outside of the streamside area?
o Please show the wetland enhancement area on the monitoring map and label as
such.
o At least one vegetation monitoring plot should be proposed within the wetland
enhancement areas.
• The Corps and NCDWR will require that future design drawings clearly show how the
upper portion UT 1 A (also referred to as UT 1) will be constructed within the existing
wetland, clearly defining the temporary or permanent impacts that will occur to the
wetland.
Benton Branch MB:
• NCWRC notes that there are records for the state special concern notched rainbow
(Villosa constricta) and the state significantly rare Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus
davidi) in Benton Branch. Therefore, we recommend stringent sediment and erosion
control measures are used for any restoration/construction activities.

• Are 60' wide road crossings necessary? This crossing width seems excessive for typical
activities in agricultural scenarios. Please minimize the road crossing width. If
minimization in this manner is not possible, please clearly explain the purpose of these
crossings and their potential effect on the restoration project.
• Section 11.1/Figure 10:
o why install the stream flow gauge in lower section of UT 2 rather than in the
upper and middle sections of UT I?
o Showing more than one (i.e. two or more) indicators of Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) per Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 should also be included as
a performance standard in the upper and middle sections of UT 1.
• The Corps and NCDWR have significant concerns that restoration of UTI and UT2 and
removal of the upstream ponds will not result in channel forming flows. The mitigation
plan should clearly indicate how and when a final jurisdictional determination will be
made, and what actions will occur if these features are not determined to be jurisdictional
after restoration.
• UTI and UT2 are identified as perennial streams in the mitigation plan but there is no
evidence or documentation of the Corps or DWR classifying these channels as
intermittent or perennial.
• Figure 613:
o Given the proposed wetland impacts to UT 1 and abutting wetlands, can the
proposed crossing location be eliminated in lieu of access directly from the north
of the pond? The sliver of wetland enhancement shown above the crossing of UT
1 is unlikely to function well given its very small size.
o Is any grading of the pond berms proposed? How will proposed areas of pond
removal/wetland restoration interact with the downstream stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement areas?
• Figure 61):
o an area of Wetland Restoration and Enhancement as well as stream restoration is
shown near the bottom of UT 4 adjacent to a proposed crossing but outside of the
easement. Is this included in the credit area/length calculations?
o The pond north of UT 5 appears to show wetland restoration but does not
specifically note it as does Figure 613; if restoration is proposed, is any grading of
the pond berm proposed? How will proposed areas of pond removal/wetland
restoration interact with the adjacent stream?
• Figure 10A:
o Surface water gauges should be installed in the upper reaches of UT and UT2 as
well as at the confluence of these channels as proposed.
o Show monitoring area for more than one (i.e. two or more) OHWM indicators.
o Recommend including a vegetation plot in at least one of the ponds proposed to
gain wetland restoration credit.
o Include one of the vegetation plots within the wetland enhancement area next to
UT 6
• Figure IOB:
o Add a vegetation plot and groundwater gauge to Wetland Restoration area to the
east of UT 4B as well as in the pond proposed to gain wetland restoration credit.

Motes Creek MB:
• NCDWR states that UT is identified as a perennial stream in the mitigation plan but
there is no evidence or documentation of the Corps or DWR classifying this channels as
intermittent or perennial.
• Table 17 (p. 27): Is planting in October too warm? Also, inconsistent with last paragraph
on p. 31, which states planting will occur from December 1 — March 15
• P. 28 indicates piped channel crossings for access to the site. Please include discussion
of the proposed stream crossings within the boundaries of the site including the purpose
of the crossings (farm roads and/or construction/maintenance access) and the potential
adverse impacts to the restoration project.
• Section 11.1/Figure 10A:
o The monitoring map shows two surface water gauges proposed for UTI, however
the text of the mitigation plan (p. 35) states there will be a surface water gauge in
the lower portion of the stream. Rather, the stream flow gauge should be installed
in middle section of UT 1 that is currently a wetland rather than a stream.
o Showing more than one (i.e. two or more) indicators of OHWM per Regulatory
Guidance Letter 05-05 should also be included as a performance standard in the
middle section of UT 1.
Are any additional marsh treatment areas or other BMPs proposed on this site other than
in the middle of the north side of UT 2?
Figure 613: 3 small wetlands (SA, SC, and SF) identified on this figure proposed as
wetland enhancement are not shown to receive any plantings per Figure 9.
Figure 10:
o Why install the stream flow gauge in upper section of UT 1 rather than in the
middle section of UT 1?
o Show monitoring area for more than one (i.e. two or more) OHWM indicators.
o Add groundwater gauge in potential wetland restoration area along UT 1.
o Add vegetation monitoring plot to wetland restoration/enhancement area south of
Motes Creek and area west of the upper end of UT 3.